Surely you have seen countless articles extolling the virtues of the jab in the arm?
Despite the fact recent studies demonstrate that vaccine efficacy is substantially less then has been officially promoted.
I will get to that.
Health Canada, giving big pharma free advertising, has dubbed October "Influenza Immunization Awareness Month."
That advertising gift is payed for by Canadian taxpayers to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. This money is being spent despite the fact that there are no major outbreaks in Canada at this time
" there have been no flu outbreaks reported in Canada yet"
Curious, when did the seasonal flu become such a big deal?
'"While the vaccine does work (sort of, kinda, maybe) and we still recommend that it be used, it does not demonstrate the kinds of efficacy levels we have reported"
Really? Imagine my non-surprise!
From the Lancet study
Moderate protection at best- Evidence for protection in seniors lacking.
"Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking."
"Can provide"? They did not even claim they do provide, using the word "can" which means it is possible. And it isn't possible. Still the msm media pushes the get a vaccination mantra.
You really got to ask yourself, why?
They are not effective at all in seniors. Not effective in the obese. There effectiveness is really lacking in the population as a whole. So why throw good taxpayer money after bad?
Other then to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry? I can't see any good reason.
Look at this headline -It's No Guarantee, But You Should Get the Flu Shot Anyway
It's no guarantee, but, get it anyway?
Does this push to vaccinate make sense to any rational thinking human being?
When you read a bit further into the article, the Lancet isn't the only study that notices the absolute ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine. The CDC did one also, with equally appalling results-
"The findings may come as a surprise to the average consumer, but public health officials and vaccine makers are familiar with the flu shot's imperfect performance. Based on its own recent, unpublished data on the 2010-11 flu season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the vaccine was 60% effective in all age groups combined, cautioning that protection may vary widely:
Indeed, a study published on Monday found that the vaccine may be even less effective than previously thought in overweight and obese people.
So let's summarize the vaccine is really useless in the elderly, the young and the obese.
And almost entirely useless in everyone else.
The only beneficiary of this push the vaccine agenda are the pharmaceutical corporations.
Every year 100's of millions, even billions of dollars are spent to promote a vaccine program that seems to benefit only one party. Big Pharma.
The problems with vaccines are not solely Canadian or American. This is an interesting news article from the Australian Press-
You just gotta love this one. Reported on in 2011. The article is covering vaccines that had "dark specks" in them, but were used during the flu season of 2010. But, don't worry, it's harmless.
Dark specks in flu vaccine 'no risk'There it is "No risk"
CSL was aware a month before it launched its pandemic vaccine in Australia in September 2009 that "foreign particles" had been found in samples for the US market, the FDA reveals in its 2010 audit of CSL's Melbourne laboratory.
Similar specks were later detected in Australia's stockpile of swine flu vaccine, which cost taxpayers $131 million.
Despite the "dark specks" the reason for there presence was never looked into though the shots were given.
"The root cause of the dark particles has not been identified and corrected," the FDA says in its report of the inspection in April last year.
"The possible root cause is mercury . . . interactions which may be occurring between the product and either the glass vials or the stoppers; however, the firm has not conducted testing to verify if this is the root cause."
The FDA report says CSL was aware on December 17, 2009, that the rubber stopper could react with the vaccine. It says CSL first detected a "black speck" in a sample of flu vaccine for the US market in August 2009 -- a month before the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved its use in Australia.What were the dark specks floating around in the vaccines? Maybe it was rubber particles?
When the sample was retested two months later, "multiple foreign particles" were found floating in the vial.
Yet by the time FDA inspectors flew to Melbourne for an audit the following April Australia's biggest pharmaceutical company still had not initiated testing to find whether the rubber stoppers were leaching into the vaccine, the FDA report reveals.
Maybe it wasn't? No one knows. No one cared. No one checked. No one corrected it.
Oh and the "no risk" claim, bogus!
CSL's internal "medical assessment" of the dark particles revealed potential side-effects of "allergic reactions, foreign body reaction to the chemical allergen, and effect on the potency or effectiveness of the vaccine," says the report, obtained by The Australian.
Potential side effects be damned- If you took this shot, you got dark specks and all.
Not exactly confidence inspiring is it?
Don't forget "dark specks"